Day 1 of FlourishDx’s Psych Health and Safety conference ended this year with a flourish, featuring a Family Feud-style contest between Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and Human Resources (HR). It was a raucous conclusion to a day of mixed safety messages.
Australia often positions itself as a leader on psychosocial hazards and occupational health and safety (OHS). A new proposal from the European Parliament (EP) provides a contrast.
Australia is living through a demographic and economic shift that is far more consequential for workplace safety than most organisations or regulators have acknowledged. George Megalogenis’ new book, Three Shocks, identifies three structural changes reshaping the nation: Australia is now a majority‑migrant country; professional women have overtaken blue‑collar men as the largest occupational group; and the geopolitical environment that once provided stability has become unpredictable. These shocks are lived realities in workplaces, and they demand an occupational health and safety (OHS) overhaul.
Trade unions have always had a substantial role in Australian occupational health and safety (OHS), particularly in the construction industry. That role should not be dismissed, minimised or romanticised. The history of union involvement in workplace safety is one of pressure, persistence and, at times, confrontation. But the more difficult question is whether trade unions should automatically control worker representation on health and safety matters. The answer is not as simple as many union advocates would like.
The Victorian Government, under its new leader, Ben Carroll, has announced the “Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria“. The Terms of Reference (ToR) have largely been praised for their breadth, but do they have any occupational health and safety (OHS) relevance? Early reporting of the government’s announcement often mentioned that the
“…lawful, legitimate and appropriate actions taken by parties under occupational health and safety laws and regulations.”
But there is more to consider.
The occupational health and safety (OHS) dimensions of working from home (WFH) are routinely misrepresented in public debate, often drowned out by managerial preference, corporate culture, and political posturing. Remarkably consistent evidence shows that WFH does not reduce productivity. In many cases it improves it, largely because autonomy, reduced commuting, and better control over work rhythms lower psychological risks such as stress, burnout, and fatigue. From an OHS standpoint, that makes WFH a legitimate and effective control measure that is certainly not a threat to organisational performance.
Yet employers frequently resist WFH, invoking vague claims about collaboration, culture, or “team cohesion”. (This article was written before the postponement of the Victorian laws)
Australian trade unions rarely campaign solely on the basis of occupational health and safety (OHS), meaning without supplementary aims such as increased wages or remuneration. Below are some examples, but they are few and usually in the wake of an industrial disaster. There are a couple of prominent union OHS campaigners, but we rarely hear of them after their passing, and many of their contributions are remembered more through internal mythologising than through documented reform.
